Advertisement

Redundant Publications

  • Nithya Gogtay
Chapter

Abstract

Studies on healthcare issues often consume a large amount of time, effort, money and resources to complete. The success of such a study is measured by its end product, namely, a published paper, and its eventual impact on human health. Biomedical scientists are under intense pressure to publish for several reasons as follows: to sustain research funding; to secure a promotion; to continue to be recognized and acknowledged as an expert within a peer group; to get invited to workshops, conferences or meetings; to serve on academic bodies or other decision-making committees; and to secure patents. This intense pressure can sometimes push scientists to publish the same piece of work more than once or, worse still, publish another person’s work as their own.

References

  1. 1.
    International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/. Accessed 30 April 2015.
  2. 2.
    Toy J. The Ingelfinger rule: Franz Ingelfinger at the New England Journal of Medicine 1967–77. Sci Editor. 2002;25:195–8.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benos DJ, Fabres J, Farmer J, Gutierrez JP, Hennessy K, Kosek D, et al. Ethics and scientific publication. Adv Physiol Educ. 2005;29:59–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schein M, Paladugu R. Redundant surgical publications: tip of the iceberg? Surgery. 2001;129:655–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rivara FP, Christakis DA, Cummings P. Duplicate publication. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158:926.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elstein AS, Cadmus C, Pitkin R, Mundy D, McDowell C. Salami science: are we still allowing it? Sci Editor. 1998;21:200.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tobin MJ. AJRCCM’s policy on duplicate publication: infrequently asked questions. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166:433–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Angell M, Relman AS. Redundant publication. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:1212–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cho BK, Rosenfeldt F, Turina MI, Karp RB, Ferguson TB, Bodnar E, et al. Joint statement on redundant (duplicate) publication by the editors of the undersigned cardiothoracic journals. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;69:663.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Angell M. Publish or perish: a proposal. Ann Intern Med. 1986;104:261–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Relman AS. Publish or perish—or both. N Engl J Med. 1977;297:724–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alfonso F, Bermejo J, Segovia J. Duplicate or redundant publication: can we afford it? Rev Esp Cardiol. 2005;58:601–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tramer MR, Reynolds DJM, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. BMJ. 1997;315:635–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109:17028–33.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109. Erratum in: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110:1137.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wager E, Williams P. Why and how to journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions from 1988–2008. J Med Ethics. 2011;37:567–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hennessey KK, Williams AR, Afshar K, MacNeily AE. Duplicate publications: a sample of redundancy in the Journal of Urology. Can Urol Assoc J. 2012;6:177–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    von Elm E, Poglia G, Walder B, Tramer M. Different patterns of duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. JAMA. 2004;291:974–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bailey BJ. Duplicate publication in the field of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;126:211–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johnson C. Repetitive, duplicate and redundant publications: a review for authors and readers. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006;29:505–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lewis J, Ossowski S, Hicks J, Errami M, Garner HR. Text similarity: an alternative way to search MEDLINE. Bioinformatics. 2006;22:2298–304.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl388.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Errami M, Sun Z, Long TC, George AC, Garner HR. Déjà vu: a database of highly similar citations in the scientific literature. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37(Database issue):D921–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rifai N, Bossuyt PM, Bruns DE. Identifying duplicate publications: primum non nocere. Clin Chem. 2008;54:777–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Committee on Publication Ethics Guidelines on Good Publication and Code of Conduct. http://www.publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines. Accessed 30 April 2015.
  24. 24.
    Bankier AA, Levine D, Sheiman RG, Lev MH, Kressel HY. Redundant publications in radiology: shades of gray in a seemingly black-and-white issue. Radiology. 2008;247:605–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kassirer JP, Angell M. Redundant publication: a reminder. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:449–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Doherty M. The misconduct of redundant publication. Ann Rheum Dis. 1996;55:783–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The National Medical Journal of India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical PharmacologySeth GS Medical College and KEM HospitalMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations